Mac clone maker Psystar plans to file its answer to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday as well as a countersuit of its own, alleging that Apple engages in anticompetitive business practices. Miami-based Psystar, owned by Rudy Pedraza, will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple's tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is "an anticompetitive restrain of trade", according to attorney Colby Springer of antitrust specialists Carr & Ferrell. Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple's EULA void, and is asking for unspecified damages. Psystar's attorneys are calling Apple's allegations of Psystar's copyright infringement "misinformed and mischaracterized". Psystar argues that its OpenComputer product is shipped with a fully licensed, unmodified copy of Mac OS X, and that the company has simply "leveraged open source-licensed code including Apple's OS" to enable a PC to run the Mac operating system.

Yes, this is correct. If you can overcome the technical difficulties, there are going to be no contractual difficulties. Any contract forbidding you to do it is not going to be enforceable. Don't violate copyright, by making unauthorized copies, though you will be able to make as many as are necessary for the installation, and you'll be fine.

Yes, this is correct. If you can overcome the technical difficulties, there are going to be no contractual difficulties. Any contract forbidding you to do it is not going to be enforceable. Don't violate copyright, by making unauthorized copies, though you will be able to make as many as are necessary for the installation, and you'll be fine.

It of course depends on your area of jurisdiction. As I showed here [1], in The Netherlands, Apple's EULA is most likely perfectly enforceable. Of course I can't speak for the United States, but it would be nice if someone wrote a similar article to what I did about the Apple EULA in the US.